JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The Petitioner has preferred this Revision against the concurrent judgment of his conviction u/s 506 Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of the Explosive substances Act and Section 27 (1) of the Arms Act and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 on each Count, i.e. Section 506 I PC, Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, and in default of payment of fine on each count as aforesaid, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month on each count. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The conviction and sentence of The Petitioner as aforesaid passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Berhampur have been concurred by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur. 2. The prosecution allegation in brief is that on 28-9-1998 at about 11.35 p.m. informant Bhabani Shankar Patnaik, the then I.I.C. of Bada Bazar PS., Berhampur received an anonymous telephone message that the accused Petitioner had come to Dhanamera Sahi along with two of his accomplices and threatened the witnesses in Prakash Behera's murder case with dire consequences if they would come forward to give statements against him. On receiving the information, one Station Diary Entry was made and the I.I.C. along with his staff proceeded to the spot. On his arrival he found that the entire street was empty and the doors of the houses there were shut. The I.I.C. and his staff searched for the accused petitioner and his accomplices, but could not locate them. They called the Sahi people, but nobody came out of their houses. After much persuasion, Sunil Kumar Naik (PW. 2), Ranjit Kukhi (P.W. 3) and Tutu behera (PW. 4) came out and confirmed the incident. They alleged about the overt acts committed by the accused-petitioner, such as Petitioner and his associates having threatened the Sahi people being armed with swords and bombs and exploded two bombs on the road; and The Petitioner abusing the people of the locality loudly and cautioning them that he (petitioner) would also murder them if they would make any statement in Prakash Behera murder case. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and The Petitioner faced his trial. 3. Prosecution examined five witnesses and exhibited three documents. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and The Petitioner faced his trial. 3. Prosecution examined five witnesses and exhibited three documents. The defence plea was complete denial and no evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced on its side. 4. The trial Court after discussing the evidence arrived at the conclusion that the accused-petitioner was guilty of the charges. Accordingly, The Petitioner was convicted and sentenced as stated above. The appellate court also once again scrutinised the entire evidence and confirming the finding arrived at by the trial Court dismissed the appeal. 5. Mr. Nayak, Learned Counsel for The Petitioner, forcefully submitted that the courts below had not properly appreciated the evidence, both oral and documentary, and the conclusions were based on mere surmises and conjectures. He also submitted that out of gurdge the case had been falsely made out against The Petitioner by his enemies and the courts below failed to appreciate that aspect. He further submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was contradictory to each other leading to inherent improbability. 6. Learned Counsel for the State, at the other hand, forcefully submitted that the courts below have properly analysed the evidence and have arrived at right conclusions. The findings are in consonance with the evidence on record. The Petitioner is a known criminal involved in several cases and it is revealed from the consistent evidence of the eye-witnesses PWs. 2 to 4 that being enraged by the fact that some of the inhabitants of the locality had given statements against him in a murder case, he along with his associates had threatened the villagers with dire consequences and to further frighten them had exploded bombs. According to the Learned Counsel for the State, the seizure-list itself would reveal that portions of the exploded bombs had been seized by police from the spot. According to the Learned Counsel for the State, on a cumulative assessment of the evidence, the courts below have rightly arrived at their conclusions and there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the same. 7. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, I also went through the case records. The FIR, Ext. 1, clearly narrates the overt acts committed by the accused-petitioner on 28-9-1998. P. Ws 2, 3 and 4 were the occurrence witnesses. Though PW. 4 turned hostile, PWs. 2 and 3 supported the prosecution case in to. 7. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, I also went through the case records. The FIR, Ext. 1, clearly narrates the overt acts committed by the accused-petitioner on 28-9-1998. P. Ws 2, 3 and 4 were the occurrence witnesses. Though PW. 4 turned hostile, PWs. 2 and 3 supported the prosecution case in to. Nothing could be elicited from their cross-examination to discredit them. P.w. 6, the I.O. stated in the evidence that during his spot inquiry immediately after the occurrence, he found the remnants of the exploded bombs and seized the same. On chemical examination, the said seized materials were found to be residues of exploded mixture of potasium chloride and sulpha. The fact of seizure made by PW. 5 remains unassailed. The oral evidence clearly substantiated the prosecution case that the accused-petitioner had exploded two bombs. On scrutiny of the entire evidence, I am satisfied that the courts below have not committed any illegality or irregularity. No error apparent on the face of the records could be pointed out. The findings arrived by the courts below are not perverse and are based on cogent evidence. I am, therefore, not inclined to differ from the order of conviction of The Petitioner. 8. It appears from the records that The Petitioner was arrested on 28-91998. He was in custody till 20-11-2000, i.e. a little more then two years. I feel that the period of custody undergone by The Petitioner, which was about two years, would be the just and sufficient substantive sentence with enhancement of the sentence of fine. 9. Accordingly while confirming the order of conviction of The Petitioner of the charges levelled against him, I modify the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years on.each count and reduce it to rigorous imprisonment for the period The Petitioner was in custody. I enhance the sentence of fine from Rs. 500.00 to Rs. 1,500.00 (one thousand five hundred) on each count, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. 10. The Criminal Revision is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. Final Result : Dismissed